Enter your email to subscribe:

A group of 19 preeminent biodiversity scientists are seeking to move biodiversity off of the environmental back burner and engender public appreciation of the catastrophic loss of biodiversity that is occurring. They recently published a compelling joint statement in Nature: Biodiversity Crisis

Life on earth is facing a major crisis with thousands of species
threatened with imminent extinction - a global emergency demanding
urgent action. This is the view of 19 of the world's most eminent
biodiversity specialists, who have called on governments to establish a
political framework to save the planet.

The
planet is losing species faster than at any time since 65 million years
ago, when the earth was hit by an enormous asteroid that wiped out
thousands of animals and plants, including the dinosaurs. Scientists
estimate that the current rate at which species are becoming extinct is
between 100 and 1,000 times greater than the normal "background"
extinction rate - and say this is all due to human activity.

The call for
action comes from some of the most distinguished scientists in the
field, such as Georgina Mace of the UK Institute of Zoology; Peter
Raven, the head of the Missouri Botanical Garden in St Louis, and
Robert Watson, chief scientist at the World Bank. "For the sake of the
planet, the biodiversity science community had to create a way to get
organised, to co-ordinate its work across disciplines and together,
with one clear voice, advise governments on steps to halt the
potentially catastrophic loss of species already occurring," Dr Watson
said.

In a joint
declaration, published today in Nature, the scientists say that the
earth is on the verge of a biodiversity catastrophe and that only a
global political initiative stands a chance of stemming the loss. They
say: "There is growing recognition that the diversity of life on earth,
including the variety of genes, species and ecosystems, is an
irreplaceable natural heritage crucial to human well-being and
sustainable development. There is also clear scientific evidence that
we are on the verge of a major biodiversity crisis. Virtually all
aspects of biodiversity are in steep decline and a large number of
populations and species are likely to become extinct this century.

"Despite this
evidence, biodiversity is still consistently undervalued and given
inadequate weight in both private and public decisions. There is an
urgent need to bridge the gap between science and policy by creating an
international body of biodiversity experts," they say.

More than a
decade ago, Edward O Wilson, the Harvard naturalist, first estimated
that about 30,000 species were going extinct each year - an extinction
rate of about three an hour. Further research has confirmed that just
about every group of animals and plants - from mosses and ferns to palm
trees, frogs, and monkeys - is experiencing an unprecedented loss of
diversity.

Scientists
estimate that 12 per cent of all birds, 23 per cent of mammals, a
quarter of conifers, a third of amphibians and more than half of all
palm trees are threatened with imminent extinction. Climate change
alone could lead to the further extinction of between 15 and 37 per
cent of all species by the end of the century, the scientists say:
"Because biodiversity loss is essentially irreversible, it poses
serious threats to sustainable development and the quality of life of
future generations."

There have been
five previous mass extinctions in the 3.5 billion-year history of life
on earth. All are believed to have been caused by major geophysical
events that halted photosynthesis, such as an asteroid collision or the
mass eruption of supervolcanoes. The present "sixth wave" of extinction
began with the migration of modern humans out of Africa about 100,000
years ago. It accelerated with the invention of agriculture 10,000
years ago and began to worsen with the development of industry in the
18th century.

Anne
Larigauderie, executive director of Diversitas, a Paris-based
conservation group, said that the situation was now so grave that an
international body with direct links with global leaders was essential.
"The point is to establish an international mechanism that will provide
regular and independent scientific advice on biodiversity," Dr
Larigauderie said. "We know that extinction is a natural phenomenon but
the rate of extinction is now between 100 and 1,000 times higher than
the background rate. It is an unprecedented loss."

The scientists
believe that a body similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change could help governments to tackle the continuing loss of species.
"Biodiversity is much more than counting species. It's crucial to the
functioning of the planet and the loss of species is extremely
serious," Dr Larigauderie said. "Everywhere we look, we are losing the
fabric of life. It's a major crisis."

One suggestion is creating a global biodiversity science panel akin to the IPCC or the Millenium Project:

One of the
reasons the issue of biological diversity remains on the back burner of
environmental concern is perhaps linked to the fact that that it is
more complex than issues such as the stratospheric ozone hole or global
climate change. Scientists say
they understand that biodiversity cannot be measured by simple
universal indicators such as temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide
because it involves several levels of organization, such as genes,
species, and ecosystems. On the other
hand, however, statistical facts on the loss of biodiversity suggest
the imminent dangers of inaction, as two thirds of the services
provided by nature to humankind are already in decline, with 12 percent
of bird species, 23 percent of mammals, 25 percent of conifers, 32
percent of amphibians, and 52 percent of cycads (a type of evergreen
plant similar to palms and ferns) continuing to face serious threats of
extinction. Moreover,
according to scientific calculations, within the next 50 years, it is
quite likely that up to another 37 percent of currently existing
species might be gone due to climate change.

About 14 years
ago, the world community created a treaty on biodiversity setting out
three main goals that include the conservation of biological diversity,
the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable
sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources. Under the treaty,
which has been signed by 188 countries, governments are required to
take certain steps that would "significantly reduce" the biodiversity
loss by the year 2010. But many
countries continue to lag behind in implementing plans on biodiversity
protection, in large measure because their policy makers have no close
and coordinated links with the scientific researchers in the field. Though
comprehensive in various ways, the treaty on biodiversity has no
clear-cut structural means to organize scientific opinion on a global
level, according to the group that is currently engaged in efforts to
create unity among its own rank and file first.

"For the sake of
the planet, the biodiversity science community has to create a way to
get organized," says Dr. Robert Watson, chief scientists at the World
Bank, who led the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) and the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (MEA). Watson thinks
that the global panel on climate change and other similar forums on
international environmental issues could prove to be good models for
biodiversity experts to help policy makers with advice on how to halt
the catastrophic loss of species. "Each model has
strengths and weaknesses," he says, "but essentially they all serve as
a reliable source of information and advice for the public, their
government and decision makers." Michel Loreau, a
biology professor at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and one of
the leading members of the group, fully agrees with Watson's proposal,
but for other reasons as well. "We need diversity
of opinions and approaches," he says, "but we also need unity behind
this collective effort, to speak with one voice collectively when it
comes to recognizing key issues and how they can best be addressed." Additionally,
"biodiversity provides ecosystem services such as disease and climate
regulation, storm protection, and habitat for useful species," says
Charles Perrings of Arizona State University, who also signed the
statement issued by the group. In his view, since
biodiversity imposes "real economic costs on society, we need to
develop clear science guidance for policy options accordingly."

For their part,
officials in some parts of the world, it seems, have no objection to
the idea that Watson and his colleagues are floating. The French
government, for example, has not merely agreed, but also provided funds
for talks to create a global panel. The ongoing
consultations are likely to be concluded shortly before the ninth
international conference of the parties to the treaty on biological
diversity takes place in Berlin, Germany in 2008. The ongoing talks
will determine what kind of biodiversity information is needed by
decision makers in many relevant areas, including fisheries,
transportation, industry, and parks management, in order to design a
panel that addresses those requirements. The group says it
wants the panel to be objective, independent, transparent, and
representative, which includes official experts, as well as independent
scientists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and private sector
representatives.
Source: OneWorld HT Common Dreams

Unfortunately, such a panel seems less likely to achieve the visibility and the attention it deserves, as compared to the Millenium Assessment project or the IPCC. First, the Millenium project created a scientific baseline that did not previously exist, while we already have a good notion that we are sustaining major biodiversity losses. Similarly, with the IPCC, there was a real need to achieve scientific consensus about the science
of global warming, due to widespread doubt about the existence, extent,
and human contribution to global warming. There seems to be less scientific uncertainty about biodiversity
losses.

Second, the major question with biodiversity is "who cares?" Many, if not most, biodiversity issues boil down to value conflicts. Do we want to restore wolf populations to the American west? Do we want to create African animal reserves at the seeming expense of indigenous peoples? Do we want to protect whales even if they might be hunted "sustainably?" Why do we need tigers? Unless and until we care either about the rest of God's creation in a spiritual way or we recognize dangers to humanity from massive biodiversity losses, policy makers simply lack the political incentives to pay attention to advice from a global biodiversity science.